MUST READ — Fluoride: What Have They Done to Us Now? — Chapter 4 of “Health and Nutrition Secrets” by Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, MD

July 9, 2013

Chapter 4, Health and Nutrition Secrets that can save your life.


Revised Edition. Health Press, Copyright, 2006.

Used with permission from Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, MD, in an email from him, received Wednesday, February 15, 2012, in which he sated:

Hello Richard,

I appreciate your fine work and dedication. You have my permission to use the chapter as long as you credit the source to my book—Health and Nutrition Secrets, which I am sure you will. I stand with the Canadians in their battle for freedom.


Dr. Blaylock”

From: Damien Blaylock <name@domain.com>
To: Richard Hudon <rich.hudon@rogers.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 10:51:37 AM
Subject: Re: Health and Nutrition Secrets – Chapter 4

[Potent News editor’s note:  I attended a Fluoridation-Free Ottawa meeting where I met Richard Hudon and he gave me permission to post this here.]


Fluoride: What Have They Done to Us Now?

Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century.”

Robert Carton, Ph.D., former EPA scientist, 1992

Regarding fluoridation, the EPA should act immediately to protect the public. Not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects.”

William Marcus, Ph.D., Senior EPA toxicologist, 1992

If the last chapter didn’t scare you, this one should. Not that it is my intent to scare you; rather, I am trying to inform you of the real dangers you and your family face every day. Unfortunately, this world is inhabited by some people who seek a profit at any cost and have no concern for public welfare and safety. The fluoride story will powerfully demonstrate that we are indeed correct to be suspicious of mega corporations. We will see how these institu­tions have done everything in their power to avoid civic responsibility and to manipulate the government, scientific institutions, and the medical and dental professions, all in the name of empty profit.

Most of us have been led to believe by a powerful propaganda network that fluoridation of drinking water, regular brushing with fluoride toothpaste, and regular fluoride treatments are not only a good way to prevent cavities, but that the practice of fluoridation itself is very safe. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who promote this viewpoint have an ulterior motive and, as we shall see, it is not your health.

What Is Fluoride?

A fluoride is a compound composed of the highly reactive element fluorine plus another element (or elements). For example, when fluorine combines with hydrogen the compound, hydrogen fluoride, is formed. Fluorine also combines readily with elemental metals, such as calcium and sodium, and the new compound then exhibits metallic properties; it is these compounds and their potential to accumulate in human tissues with which we will be most concerned.

The halogen fluorine is a yellowish, poisonous, highly corrosive gas. Halogens are a class of nonmetallic chemical elements which also include chlorine, bromine, and iodine, and are used industrially to kill pathogenic organisms—and can kill human cells as well. One halogen, chlorine, can kill all life forms including viruses and even prions (short for “proteinaceous infectious particle,” a nucleic-acid-free protein which can transmit infectious disease, and is responsible for such infamous conditions as mad cow disease and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease).

Fluorine is the least dense and most active member of this chemical class: it can even displace oxygen from water. And, because it is so reactive, it never occurs uncombined in nature. Fluoride is also a byproduct of the aluminum, steel, and fertilizer industries. It is essential to remember that fluoride is so reactive it can eat through steel, glass, iron, aluminum, and most other substances: it joins mercury as being one of the most poisonous substances on earth.

The compounds of the element are widely used in many industrial processes. For example, hydrofluoric acid (a water solution of hydrogen fluoride) is used in glass etching, and sodium fluoride in high concentrations is used in rat poisons and pesticides—in smaller concentrations, you will find it in your toothpaste. A common ingredient of many pesticides, sodium hexafluorosilicate (also known as sodium silicofluoride), is added to drinking water. In concentrations smaller than those used to destroy plant pests, the experts tell us the substance is not only safe, it also prevents cavities and encourages good dental health.

History of Fluoride in Cavity Prevention

Officials who loudly promote fluoridation of public water claim as their motivation the prevention of dental cavities. They frequently cite studies comparing tooth decay rates in fluoridated areas to unfluoridated areas, which purport to show dramatic reductions in tooth decay in children—as much as a 60 percent difference. If this were true, and fluoride were indeed safe, it would be a truly miraculous substance, but this still would not justify putting it in the water supply because we are being medicated and have not even been given a choice in the matter, as you will see. As it stands, there is in fact no credible evidence that fluoride added to the water supply reduces cavity rates at all, and several studies have convincingly demonstrated that the incidence of cavities is actually higher in fluoridated areas.

Shortly after the turn of the century it was noticed that children in certain areas of the country had a high incidence of damaged teeth. Further investigation disclosed that this mottling of their tooth enamel, now known as “dental fluorosis,” was caused by elevated contents of naturally occurring fluoride in certain water systems. This finding motivated the American Dental Association and the U.S. Public Health Service to call for the removal of fluoride in the water from these areas. H. Trendley Dean of the U.S. Public Health Service in 1930 conducted the original work on this problem.

At this juncture, Dr. Gerald Cox took up the banner and suggested that using a smaller dose of fluoride could not only prevent dental fluorosis, but could even prevent cavities. He suggested adding 1 ppm of fluoride to the public drinking water. He made these proclama­tions without any studies, human or otherwise, to suggest that it would be effective or safe. What makes this so interesting is that Dr. Cox was on the staff of the Mellon Institute, and the Mellon family owned the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa). One of the major waste products produced in the aluminum industry is fluoride. Because of its intense corro­sive ability and extreme toxicity, disposal of fluoride had, up until that time, been a very expensive and controversial proposition. So what could the aluminum industry do with all of this toxic fluoride? After all, safe disposal cost the company millions of dollars every year. Ironically, the answer was to come from government.

Fortunately for Alcoa, Andrew Mellon, its founder, was also the Treasury Secretary. Interestingly, the U.S. Public Health Service at that time was under the direct control of the Treasury Secretary. Dr. Dean, who eventually came to support adding 1 ppm fluoride to public water supplies as a safe and effective way to reduce dental caries, became known as “Mr. Fluoridation,” and was chosen by the USPHS to head up the fluoridation studies.

As Dr. John Yiamouyiannis noted in his excellent book, Fluoride. The Aging Factor, the American Medical Association (AMA) , on September 18, 1943, (as fluoridation was first being proposed) cautioned that fluoride was a powerful protoplasmic poison, and because of its widespread presence in nature, toxic accumulation could be a major problem if water was fluoridated. On October 1, 1944, the Journal of the American Dental Association also noted that “the potential for harm outweighed those for good.” It would behoove the Association’s present membership to remember that in this same article, the ADA recog­nized that as little as l.2-3.0 ppm of fluoride in drinking water was associated with “devel­opmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, spondylosis, and osteoporosis, as well as goiter.”

Despite these cautionary warnings, Dr. Cox convinced Dr. J.1. Frisch, a Wisconsin dentist, to actively promote fluoridation of the water supply. According to historians of the era, Frisch led the charge with the frenzy of a religious zealot and turned it into a political crusade.

These developments were, of course, just what Alcoa’s owners wanted. In 1944, according to Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce held on May 25-27, 1954, Alcoa hired a powerful attorney, Oscar Ewing, and paid him an annual salary of $750,000, even though Alcoa wasn’t facing any major litigation. A few months after being hired, he left the company to accept a job as Federal Security Administrator, a position that put him in charge of the USPHS and under the direct control of—you guessed it—Treasury Secretary Mellon. It should also be noted that he made a great deal of fanfare about leaving such a well-paid job to serve his country. Not surprisingly, Ewing launched a vigorous nationwide campaign to promote fluoridation of public water supplies.

The fluoridation effort was no small project, and certainly not one that Ewing intended to lose. He hired the best public relations master money could buy: Edward L. Bernays, labeled by The Washington Post as “the original spin doctor.” In addition to his other credentials, Bernays was also the nephew of Sigmund Freud. Bernays knew the best route to take was to get the endorsement of the dental and medical professionals, since the public depended on their wisdom in these matters, and generally trusted them.

By using all of the powers at their command Mellon’s fluoridation team convinced the city council of Grand Rapids, Michigan, to allow its water supply to be fluoridated, with the city of Muskegon serving as an unfluoridated control in the experiment. The project was to begin on January 25, 1945, and would be the first U.S. city to add fluoride to its drinking water. Two things need to be understood at this point. First, the recommendation was accepted just three months after the dire warnings expressed by both the AMA and the ADA. Second, even at that time there was significant evidence that fluoride was toxic to cells in small concentrations, yet these devious men proceeded despite the fact that no human studies had been published on the safety of adding fluoride to Grand Rapids’ water supply. The people of Grand Rapids were to be unwilling test subjects.

Opponents of the fluoridation project were quickly labeled by the masterminds of Alcoa’s PR group as loonies and right-wing extremists who saw fluoridation as a communist plot. I remember these charges very well in the 1950s, having grown up during that period. Suddenly making a complete reversal of their previous stance, the USPHS and the ADA began to endorse widespread fluoridation, even before a single study of the Michigan exper­iment had been completed that could show fluoridation was safe, much less that it reduced cavities. But there was a compelling reason they didn’t want to wait on the results of a study, namely because initial results were showing that tooth decay rates in unfluoridated Muskegon had decreased as much as fluoridated Grand Rapids. In fact, tooth decay rates were falling in all industrialized nations well before fluoridation. Why? Because of better hygiene and nutrition.

The fluoridationists’ shenanigans were recognized as early as 1952 by Dr. A.L. Miller, a U.S. representative from Nebraska who was also Chairman of the Special Committee on Chemicals in Foods. He noted how strange it was that high officials of the US PHS would do a complete about- face on the acceptability of fluoridation—and within only three months of advocating extreme caution. Dr. Miller also noted that he could find no original studies by the AMA or the ADA, or any other evidence for fluoridation’s usefulness. All those associations did was refer to each other for confirmation. Representative Miller also noted the convenient connection between Oscar Ewing in his position as Federal Security Administrator and his representation of Alcoa, which was anxious to get rid of its toxic fluoride waste.

In his book on this subject, Dr. Yiamouyiannis also points out that dissenting dentists were either censured or lost their ADA membership. Dental scientists themselves were controlled by the power of US PHS grant money: those who criticized fluoridation simply saw their grant monies dry up, a very effective tactic still used in many other areas of politicized science.

The list of people involved in the fluoridation conspiracy reads like a rogues’ gallery. For example, there is John Small, the USPHS’ fluoridation expert since the 1960s. His sole job is to stem any criticism of fluoridation from any quarter, and he does his job very well. One of his major tasks is to harass, intimidate, and virtually destroy anyone who dares to publicly speak or write about the dangers of fluoridation. As an example of his viciousness, I will share the story of Dr. Yiamouyiannis, who was once the biochemical editor of the Chemical Abstracts Service, the world’s largest chemical information center. When John Small learned that Dr. Yiamouyiannis was writing critical reviews of fluoridation, he contacted the problem doctor’s immediate superior and expressed his displeasure. In ensuing conversa­tions with this superior, Dr. Yiamouyiannis was told that $1.1 million in federal funding was in jeopardy if he did not cease and desist his criticisms of fluoridation. The good doctor was warned several more times and finally—unwilling to suppress the truth about fluoridation dangers—he was forced to resign. So much for the independence of science.

The ADA Fights Back: the Grand White Paper on Fluoridation

After his forced resignation, Dr. Yiamouyiannis was appointed director of the National Health Federation, where he continued his battle against fluoridation. In 1978 his pivotal testimony before a Pennsylvania court convinced the presiding judge to ban fluoridation of all public water supplies in the region.

Terrified their pet project was in jeopardy, the ADA hurriedly put together a “White Paper on Fluoridation,” which set the tone for future dealings with its enemies. Opponents of fluoridation were henceforth to be labeled as “self-serving” and “self-styled experts” unqualified to speak on the issue. The leaders of the ADA suggested that dental associates convince their politician patients of the virtues and safety of fluoridation while they had them in the chair. The paper also suggested that the EPA, CDC, National Centers for Health Statistics, National Institute of Dental Research, and state dental societies all work together to move on communities considered ripe for the implementation of fluoridation.

Incredibly, this seminal paper even included a suggestion for behavioral profiling of opponents so that they could be better dealt with. It said that public debates about safety

Fluoride …

causes dental fluorosis.

damages DNA repair enzymes.

increases risk for osteoporosis.

increases risk for cancer (bone, oral, bladder, lung).

causes genetic damage.

causes skeletal fluorosis.

causes abnormal brain development.

causes hypothyroidism.

reduces fertility in males.


would be deferred to the USPHS and state health departments, who would assure a trusting public that no studies existed indicating a problem with small concentrations of fluoride being added to water. Of course, this was—and continues to be—a bold-faced lie. Even by the 1960s there was significant scientific evidence indicating that, even at the low levels proposed by fluoridationists, the substance is toxic to humans.

The War Council Meets to Plan Strategy

Individual choice is utterly repugnant to such single-minded collectivists, who always resort to compulsion when citizens reject their grandiose plans. So it comes as no surprise that the powerful proponents of fluoridation decided to cull their immense resources, and scheduled a meeting to deal with growing public dissension. Fluoridation was all-out war in the minds of these crusaders, and it would be fought as such.

On August 9 and 10, 1983, members of a planning committee met at the University of Michigan to organize their troops and plan their strategy. The powerful forces of govern­ment and industry had joined hands in this battle to the finish. This “war council” was sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Prevention Services, Dental Disease Prevention Activity, Dental Health Plan of Michigan, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, and Medical Products Laboratories.

The ostensible purpose of the meeting was to discuss the status of the antifluoridation opposition, to analyze their opponents’ motivations, to assess a need for a national fluorida­tion policy, and to evaluate legal challenges.

It is interesting to note that one of the speakers, Dr. William T. Jarvis, warned that when he allowed fluoridation debates in his dental classes, “Invariably, each class became more antifluoridationist as a result of the debate.” Dr. Sheldon Rovin also warned that participants should avoid local referendums on fluoridation. Why? Because fluoridation opponents would convince the public to reject fluoridation by presenting the scientific facts concerning the danger. And incredibly, Dr. D. Scott Navarro of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, as chairman of his workshop, suggested that taxpayers themselves should bear the cost of litigation when proponents had to defend fluoridation before the courts!

The ADA Struggles to Cover Up Fluoride Dangers

The passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974 presented a terrible dilemma for the ADA. The EPA set the maximum allowable concentration of fluoride at 1.4 ppm for warmer climates and 2.4 ppm for cooler climates. The reason for this disparity is related to the issue of total body accumulations of toxic substances in body tissues, which—as I showed with mercury—remain in the body for a very long time after exposure. With fluoride, the concern is with potentially dangerous accumulations in bone. The EPA’s assumption was that people in warmer climates drink more water than those who live in cooler climates, and would thus store a greater total amount of fluoride over the same period of time.

The reason for the ADA’s concern was that fluoride levels being added to drinking water were very close to those the EPA recognized as toxic levels. As we shall see, toxicity actually occurs at concentrations below those being added to water. The ADA asked EPA officials to raise the recognized toxicity levels to 8 ppm to lessen public fears of the fluori­dation program. As a result, the EPA held hearings, inviting ADA representatives to attend. Lisa Watson, the ADA’s delegate at these hearings, was shown a slide of a child’s horribly eroded and crumbling teeth due to dental fluorosis. She was told that this had resulted from exposure to 4 ppm of fluoride occurring naturally. When asked if she considered this to be a significant health problem, her response was “no,” that it was a cosmetic problem. She didn’t stand alone in that conclusion.

A bogus report prepared by the government and sent to the EPA scientists concluded that dental fluorosis did not occur below 2 ppm. This was clearly a lie, since other studies clearly demonstrated its occurrence at 0.8 ppm. The report also concluded that “teeth with fluorosis are desirable.” How desirable are teeth that are crumbling, pitted, and mottled with dark brown spots? Repair of fluorosis is very expensive, even more so than cavities.

EPA scientists were not convinced by the dog-and-pony act and refused to raise the toxic limits to 8 ppm. The vote was ten to two in favor of leaving the toxic limits at 1.4 and 2.4 ppm for children up to age nine. Unsurprisingly, given the government, industry, and forces embroiled in the debate, the report was later altered, officially raising toxic levels to 4 ppm—completely without the committee’s knowledge or consent.

Now let us backtrack for a bit to a very interesting part of the fluoridation story, one which illustrates well how the dovetailing interests of industry profit and government protec­tionism collude to suppress truth and destroy public trust.

The Atomic Bomb and Fluoridation of Water

This astounding report is the result of the intrepid efforts of two medical journalists, Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson, who have labored against all the forces of government secrecy to provide us with this critically important investigation. Consult their 1997 article, “Toxic Secrets: Fluoride And The Manhattan Project,” for a complete account of the sordid politics behind fluoridation of our water supplies.

The story begins during World War II in 1943 with the Manhattan Project and the creation of the atomic bomb, one of the most secret projects in our nations’ history. The manufacture of high-grade uranium for nuclear bombs required huge amounts of fluoride—millions of tons of it in fact—and many parts of the project were farmed out to America’s manufac­turing firms, such as the industry giant DuPont. Handling such enormous quantities of fluoride proved to be a monumental task, chiefly because of the escape of the fluoride into the atmosphere.

In the early 1940s, the E.I. DuPont de Nemours Company chemical factory in Deepwater, New Jersey, was one of the largest fluoride producers on the Manhattan Project. The manufacturing process continually released clouds of toxic fluorine gas into the atmosphere, covering nearby farms and orchards. At the time, these farms produced some of the highest quality produce in the area: their peaches went directly to the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York and the Campbell’s Soup Company bought up tomatoes from the region. But by the summer of 1944, farmers began reporting blighted and “burned” crops. Peaches would no longer grow, and whole orchards were abandoned. Animals were also affected. Horses began to walk stiff-legged and some cows became so sick they could graze only by crawling on their bellies. Farm workers who ate the crops became sick as well, and many vomited continually for up to two days after eating the produce.

Not unlike most disasters involving the government, a massive cover-up ensued. Eventually, the Pentagon intervened directly and engineered a whitewash of the disaster that included token pay-offs to the injured farmers who had filed suit against the government in 1946 once the war ended. These lawsuits sent ripples of fear throughout the government (as recently released secret memos from the period indicate), and raised concerns that future suits would raise public awareness of the dangers of fluoride in manufacturing and defense, thus impeding the government’s ability to continue its atomic research—the cornerstone of this country’s international superiority following World War II. At the center of it all sat two major players from the Atomic Energy Commission: Dr. Harold Hodge and his immediate superior, Colonel Stafford L. Warren, Chief of the Medical Division.

It is important to note that plans for testing of animal and human subjects began even before the Deepwater incident. A declassified Manhattan Project memo marked SECRET and dated April 29, 1944, addressed to Colonel Stafford Warren reads: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect. . .It seems most likely that the F

component rather than the T [uranium] is the causative factor.” The memo-writer then seeks approval from Warren for a program of animal research on CNS effects, suggesting that worker confusion may result from fluoride poisoning. Strangely, the proposal attached to the request—which Warren approved the very same day—and the study itself have disappeared from the National Archives. Harold Hodge is named in the memo as the author of the missing proposal.

Planning also began in 1943 for human studies. It was obvious that researchers would need a large-scale human experiment to justify what they were proposing; that is, using fluorida­tion of the public water supply to prevent cavities. The first experiment would involve two matched cities in New York State, one to have its water fluoridated and one to serve as a control. The town of Newburgh was to have 1 ppm of fluoride added to its water supply and Kingston was to serve as a control, since its natural fluoride content was less than 0.15 ppm.

The central research facility for fluoride testing was to be the University of Rochester, under the direction of our old friends Hodge and Warren. It is important to emphasize that these studies were not really about reducing cavities so much as deflecting bomb-related law suits. Another declassified memo, this one dated May 2, 1946, and addressed to General Leslie R. Groves, states that agencies “are making scientific investigations to obtain evidence which may be used to protect the interest of the Government at the trial of the suits brought by owners of peach orchards in … New Jersey.”

Furthermore, it is crucial to know that the University of Rochester had already been used as a testing facility for toxic effects on humans of radioactivity. In a Pulitzer Prize-winning article in the early 1990s, Eileen Welsome revealed the cruel and unethical tests that had been performed in Rochester without the knowledge or consent of the unfortunate victims who were injected with lethal doses of radioactive plutonium. It is now obvious that the University of Rochester enjoyed a very cozy relationship with the federal government and funding of highly questionable secret research during this whole period.

The fluoride deal was worked out by a special committee of the New York Health Department. Not surprisingly, none other than Dr. Harold Hodge—chairman of the special committee—was appointed director of the fluoride study program, tasked with establishing the safety of fluoride to combat cavities. He would eventually become the nation’s leading proponent of water fluoridation.

Other committee members included Henry L Bennett, a captain in the Manhattan Project’s medical section, and John W. Fertig, who was a member of the Pentagon’s super secret research and development office. These men’s military affiliations were kept secret and special care was taken to conceal their secret mandate. Dr. David B. Ast, Chief Dental officer with the State Health Department was appointed officer in charge of the Newburgh project.

Dr. Ast stringently denied, even until his death, knowledge of the Atomic Energy Commission’s involvement in the study, but a recently released secret memo indicates other­wise. Ast not only attended a secret wartime Manhattan Project conference in January 1944, he also accompanied Dr. Hodge on a government-sponsored trip to investigate the DuPont spill that decimated crops and injured people and livestock.

Only a few months after the ADA’s Michigan experiment began, Newburgh’s water was fluoridated in May 1945 and Dr. Hodge and his committee worked out in detail what kinds of studies would be done over the following decade on the exposed population. Not surpris­ingly, these scientists conducted secret studies (called Project F) on Newburgh’s population separate from those that had been formally announced. These studies included tests of tissue and blood levels of fluoride and possible toxic effects of chronic exposure. The New York State Health Department cooperated fully by shipping blood, tissue, and placental samples directly to Dr. Hodge’s laboratory at the University of Rochester.

In the course of the study, Dr. Hodge hit upon a grand idea. He knew that atomic bomb workers had experienced a dramatic decrease in cavity incidence—because exposure to high levels of fluoride had caused their teeth to fall out. Fewer teeth, fewer cavities! This handy statistical method would be used again and again, when later studies “demonstrated” that fluoride reduced cavities in children less than six years old. They too had fewer teeth, but this fact is never mentioned in published study results.

The final conclusions of the Newburgh study were published in the Journal of the American Dental Association in 1956. It essentially stated that small concentrations of fluoride placed in the drinking water were found to be safe. The study itself is still classified, so that we may never know what was really discovered concerning the toxicity of chronic exposure to low doses of fluoride in large populations. In fact, the report is missing from the files of the University of Rochester, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the U.S. National Archives. Very convenient!

As a comparison, it is interesting to note that Bryson and Griffiths did find one study in the National Archives that formed the basis of an obviously censored article that appeared in a 1948 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association. These journalists compared the actual study with the journal results, irrefutably showing that the government suppressed information about the very real health risks posed by fluoride exposure. For example, the secret government study stated that many of the men in the study exposed to fluoride had no teeth—yet the published version made no mention of this vital fact. It simply stated that the men exposed to fluoride had fewer cavities. While we have only one study, and many were completed which have disappeared, it is this missing research upon which is based the alleged safety of water fluoridation.

Problems with the Newburgh Experiment

This famous massive population experiment, which began in 1945, was loudly proclaimed seven or eight years later to have shown that indeed fluoride did reduce cavities in Newburgh. A figure of 60 percent reduction in cavities was reported. In fact, the results were tainted just like the original, but still secret, Atomic Energy Commission report that also showed a 60 percent reduction in cavities. As you will recall, the “reduction” in tooth decay was because the subjects had 60 percent fewer teeth. The children of Newburgh were found to have fewer teeth and a delay in the appearance of new teeth.

In 1995 another comparison was made between the cavity incidence of still-unfluoridated Kingston with fluoridated Newburgh. Researchers found little difference in cavity incidence in seven- to fourteen-year-olds. Statistically, the children in Kingston had slightly fewer cavities than those in Newburgh. But, there was one major difference: children in the fluor­idated community of Newburgh had twice the incidence of dental fluorosis. So now let us address the essential question: Does fluoridation of drinking water reduce cavities III children?

Does Fluoridation of Drinking Water Actually Reduce Cavities?

This, obviously, is the most important question, since it is the sole justification for adding fluoride to the public water system. According to conventional academic wisdom, the basis for fluoridating water to prevent cavities hinges on a study conducted in 1933-1934 by the United States Health Service, led by Dr. H. Trendley Dean, in which communities with naturally fluoridated water were compared to communities having low levels of fluoride in their water. Bauxite, Arkansas, was chosen as the study city, since it had a natural level of fluoride of 14 ppm. Researchers claimed that Bauxite had a dental caries (tooth decay) rate of 39 percent compared to unfluoridated communities of 65 percent. This sounds very impressive.

Numerous studies have now shown that cities with fluoridated water, when compared to unfluoridated cities, either have no reduction in cavities or the unfluoridated cities have an even lower incidence of caries. If fluoridating the water could reduce the incidence of cavities, then fluoridated San Francisco should have a drastically lower incidence of cavities than unfluoridated Los Angeles. In truth, Los Angeles has a lower incidence of tooth decay than San Francisco.

The USPHS used thirty-nine thousand school children to carry out one of the largest U.S. studies ever done on fluoridation and tooth decay. The results of this important study were not made available to the public until Dr. John Yiamouyiannis forced the release of the report under the Freedom of Information Act. Once he reviewed the data, he realized why they wanted it kept secret: it clearly demonstrated that the incidence of tooth decay in fluor­idated and unfluoridated areas was no different. When confronted with this damaging infor­mation, the defenders of fluoridation stated that there was a difference in children below age six. Once again it was shown that in the fluoridated group tooth eruption was delayed or prevented, resulting in fewer teeth. It was the old idea: fewer teeth, fewer cavities.

In 1981 Ziegelbecker reviewed all published studies and found no evidence of cavity reduc­tion by fluoridating water supplies.112 In another study of eight developed countries, Mark Diesendorf looked at the data on decayed, missing and filled (DMFT) teeth over a thirty ­year period and found no difference between fluoridated and unfluoridated cities.113

In reviewing the literature on fluoridation and tooth decay, nothing I found convinced me more of the dreadful error of fluoridation of public water supplies than the testimony of Dr. John Colquhoun, a man of incredible integrity and courage. All of us are vulnerable to error and being led astray, either by the deception of others or by our own desire to believe. But, it takes a man of enormous courage and conviction to admit publicly that he has been in error, and to endure the scorn of his colleagues in an effort to correct his error. Dr. Colquhoun is such a man.

As a dentist of high repute, he was chosen to promote the new program of fluoridation in his home city of Auckland, New Zealand’s largest city. From his position as the Principal Dental Officer, he led the battle to fluoridate not only Auckland but the rest of New Zealand as well, whose population had been resisting government efforts. Because New Zealand’s dental care system was socialized, Colquhoun was able to collect large amounts of data on tooth decay rates, especially in poor areas. He wrote widely quoted papers on the dramatic fall in tooth decay rates in the fluoridated city. Like others today, he attacked his colleagues who dared to disagree, sometimes viciously. His success in promoting fluoridation was so phenomenal that he was elected president of the Fluoridation Society.

In 1980 he was chosen to make a world tour to further study fluoridation efforts by colleagues in other countries. Before he left, his superiors confided in him that new evidence had arisen indicating that tooth decay was already declining in unfluoridated school districts at a rate equal to that of the fluoridated areas. He was told that the elite members of the fluoride “team” would soon discover the cause of this problem and correct it.

Colquhoun’s world tour took him to North America, Britain, Europe, and Australia, where he met all of the experts promoting fluoridation in their respective countries. Much to his surprise, he discovered that these experts were having the same problem as his colleagues in New Zealand. They were finding dramatic declines in tooth decay of equal magnitude in both fluoridated and unfluoridated communities. Again, they had no explanation.

On his return, Dr. Colquhoun reviewed the dental statistics collected on all children living in Auckland, and to his surprise he found that children living in un fluoridated areas had fewer fillings and better overall dental health than those in fluoridated areas. It is important to remember that New Zealand’s dental program is completely socialized, so that all children receive essentially the same care.

At this juncture, Dr. Colquhoun requested dental statistics from the rest of New Zealand, and was told that they were not to be made public. Review of the information made clear why: it clearly demonstrated that the number of children with perfect teeth was greater in the unfluoridated areas. Such a revelation would have endangered the fluoridation program, since its sole stated goal was to reduce dental caries in youth. The data were eventually published.

Meanwhile, in the United States, fluoridation promotion experts refused for many years to release their own data comparing fluoridated and un fluoridated areas, surveys that clearly demonstrate no difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. Other large population studies in Missouri and Arizona have shown similar results.

In fact, some studies have shown a direct connection between cavity incidence and fluori­dation levels. For instance, when Dr. Steelink reviewed dental records of all school children in Tucson, Arizona, some twenty-six thousand children, he found higher cavity occurrence in fluoridated areas. In fact, the higher the fluoride intake, the greater the number of cavities. Similar results were seen in Australia, Britain, Canada, Sri Lanka, Greece, Malta, Spain, Hungary, and India.

India is an interesting anomaly in this story, in that it has been leading the fight against fluoridation for a long time. Why? Because naturally high fluoride water levels in that country have created ongoing health problems in many Indian communities. In a thirty-year study of over 400,000 children, Dr. Teito and his team found that as fluoride levels in the water increased, tooth decay also increased.

So what can account for the steep drop in tooth decay in this country? A review of dental statistics clearly indicates that tooth decay began to decline sometime in the 1930s. Fluoride wasn’t added to toothpaste by Proctor & Gamble until early 1960, so brushing with fluoride toothpaste could not have had anything to do with this decrease. One of the most important factors in improved dental health was better overall nutrition and greater consumption of fruits and vegetables (greatly assisted by the introduction of refrigerators about this time). Others have pointed to the eightfold increase of cheese consumption, which has been shown to inhibit tooth decay, most likely due to its high calcium content.

Not to be outdone, fluoridation proponents began to rig their studies to purposefully show that fluoridation reduces cavities. A good case in point is the famous Hastings Fluoridation Experiment. Dr. Cloquhoun obtained the data on this often-cited study by using his country’s version of our Freedom of Information Act. He found that, to begin with, dentists were ordered to change the way they diagnosed tooth decay, toughening the criteria of what could be called a cavity, so that fluoridationists in his country could report a dramatic fall in cavities with the introduction of fluoridation.

Even more devious, New Zealand fluoridationists originally included the city of Napier as an unfluoridated control. Then suddenly, without explanation, they dropped Napier from the study. Why? Because tooth decay rates in unfluoridated Napier actually declined even more than the fluoridated city, and researchers couldn’t let the public know that, so they just elimi­nated the “problem” from the study. Similar deceptions were used in the Grand Rapids, Newburgh, Evanston and Brantford studies in the United States. This is not only bad science but criminal behavior, since by then studies had demonstrated that fluoride was associated with dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, osteoporosis, increased cancer rates, lower fertility, weakened bones, genetic damage, and even damage to the brain. There was, and is, absolutely no justification for adding fluoride to drinking water!

The Cancer Connection

Most regulatory agencies responsible for public safety cite preventing cancer and lowering risk as the major criteria in limiting exposure to potentially toxic substances. In general, wide margins of safety are adopted for safe doses and toxic or cancer-causing doses. The differential recognizes wide variances in human sensitivity to various cancer-causing agents, and also takes into consideration the problem of accumulation and long-term exposure to known toxins. We know that each of us possesses unique metabolic and biochemical differ­ences, and our individual responses to a toxin can vary widely. For example, if you give one hundred people a large dose of arsenic, most will become violently ill and many will die. But some will be able to consume the very same dose with very little toxic effect. In fact, it may take massive doses of arsenic to kill such a person. The same is true for all toxins.

There are many reasons for our variable tolerance to poisonous substances, including: our ability to detoxify poisons, our antioxidant defenses, strength of our DNA-repair enzymes, degree of absorption of the toxins, differences in our cellular enzymes, age differences, presence of pre-existing diseases, genetic inheritance, exposure to other toxins at the same time, and the strength of our immune system. To complicate matters, there exist many as yet unknown or poorly understood factors.

In a paper published in the journal, Cancer Research, in 1984 Dr. Takeki Tsutsui and his co­workers demonstrated that fluoride could indeed induce cancer (fibrosarcoma) when injected under the skin of hamsters.114 This original research was confirmed by other independent laboratories, including the Argonne National Laboratories. Of special impor­tance, the Argonne Labs found that fluoride enhanced the cancer-causing ability of other chemicals as well.115

Clinical studies on humans also demonstrated precancerous transformation of cells in patients who had received fluoride as a failed treatment for osteoporosis.116 These precan­cerous cells reverted to normal when fluoride treatments were stopped.

Alerted by these studies, other researchers examined the effects of exposing animals to a concentration of 1 ppm in drinking water, and observed a 25 percent increase in tumor growth in mice.117 This 1965 study was available to all of the government agencies pushing fluoridation of city water systems at that time, as well as to the Proctor & Gamble company, who made the decision to start adding large amounts of fluoride to toothpaste. The impor­tance of this study cannot be stressed too highly. Consider that there are hundreds of thousands of cancer patients in the United States alone, and cancer has become one of the two leading causes of death in this country since the end of WWII (along with heart disease). The idea that fluoride could increase the growth rate of cancers in the population by 25 percent is truly frightening.

The next step in connecting fluoridation of drinking water to cancer involved a careful look at the incidence of cancer in fluoridated cities versus un fluoridated cities. This important study was carried out in 1977 by Dr. Dean Burke, former chief chemist at the National Cancer Institute, and Dr. John Yiamouyiannis. They compared the cancer death rates in the ten largest fluoridated cities with rates in ten matched unfluoridated cities. The cities’ cancer death rates were very similar during the period just prior to fluoridation, but once public water supplies were fluoridated, they found a strong association between cancer death rates and fluoridation. In fact, fluoridated cities demonstrated a 10 percent increase in cancer deaths following the first thirteen to seventeen years of fluoridation.

To appreciate the enormity of this number, that means that during this period, for a city the size of San Francisco with 6.6 million people, fluoridation could potentially be responsible for hundreds of new cancers. Who wants to volunteer to be the one to die? But there are no volunteers: fluoridation has been forced on you and millions of others.

That fluoridation of drinking water is a significant risk factor for cancer has even been proven in several court cases, one in Pennsylvania and one in Illinois. The judges in these cases not only cited fluoride added to water as a cancer risk but also as a risk to health in general.118

To confirm what they had discovered in the first cancer study, Drs. Burk and Yiamouyiannis conducted a second study of cancer deaths rates in all cities east of the Mississippi River with populations greater than ten thousand, and again found statistically significant elevated death rates in fluoridated cities as compared to unfluoridated cities.119

As a result of these studies, Congress became concerned with the effect of the fluoridation program and began hearings on the subject in 1977. The US Public Health Service tried to allay Congressmen’s fears by presenting data that refuted Drs. Burke and Yiamouyiannis’ studies. But the USPHS’ study was seriously and flagrantly flawed, a fact addressed in the course of the hearings: it contained significant mathematical errors and left out 80-90 percent of the data pertinent to the issue.

Congress, not convinced by the USPHS’ answers, ordered them to conduct a study that would definitively answer the question of whether fluoridation of drinking water causes substantial cancer risk. In an effort to carry out this mandate, the USPHS obtained the services of the Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio, to carry out the studies. On February 23, 1989, the Institute announced the results of its careful research.120 Of particular importance, they had discovered that exposure to fluoride in drinking water caused a rare form of liver cancer in male and female mice called a hepatocholangiocarcinoma. The incidence of these cancers was, yet again, dose-dependent—the higher the dose of fluoride, the greater the incidence of the cancer.

This tumor is so rare that it was the first one of its kind the project leader of Battelle Labs had ever seen in his years of testing carcinogenic substances. The USPHS actually tried to deny that the observed growths were cancerous tumors at all, but when the slides were later examined by the scientist who had first described this rare cancer he confirmed that the growths were indeed hepatocholangiocarcinomas.

A second part of the study revealed that there was also a dose-dependent relationship between fluoride consumption in drinking water and cancer of the mouth. Exposure of the tissues had produced a precancerous lesion called oral squamous cell metaplasia. At 11 ppm there was a 2 percent incidence and at 45 ppm a 12 percent incidence. While this may seem far above the doses most people would be exposed to, consider that fluoride treatments at dentists’ offices contain 15,000 ppm of fluoride, which soaks into the tissues of the mouth. Also the use of fluoride varnishes, plus fluoride mouthwashes and toothpaste all add up to very high levels of fluoride in direct contact with the tissues of the mouth.

It is not unreasonable, given the Battelle study’s findings, to conclude that the cumulative effect of all this fluoride exposure would produce oral cancers in a small, but significant, percentage of people, especially if they engaged in other risky practices such as smoking and chewing tobacco. An examination of fluoridated communities compared to unfluoridated communities confirms our fears: oral cancers are more common in fluoridated communi­ties. Once again, the incidence is related to the number of years the community has been fluoridated, the data indicating a 33-50 percent increase in oral cancers in fluoridated communities.

Cancer of the Bone

That fluoride is linked to bone cancers has been known for a long time. But, like so much of this unwelcome information, it has been kept from the public. In fact, Proctor & Gamble Company’s scientists found a link between fluoride ingestion and cancer formation in bone at a time when they were adding fluoride to Crest toothpaste. This information was not voluntarily released but required the good old Freedom of Information Act to pry it loose. According to Dr. Yiamouyiannis, other studies by Proctor & Gamble confirmed that fluoride was linked to precancerous bone lesions.

Battelle Labs also found a link to bone cancers. In their carefully conducted studies they found a rare form of bone cancer called an osteosarcoma, significantly increased in male rats exposed to fluoridated drinking water. At 45 ppm the incidence was 2 percent and at 79 ppm, 5 percent. In humans this highly malignant cancer most often occurs in males younger than twenty years old. Remember that fluoride accumulates in the body, primarily in the bones, and several studies have found bone fluoride levels in fluoridated areas to be several thousand parts per million.

If there is a connection between bone cancer and fluoridation, we would expect bone cancer rates in young males should have gone up in fluoridated areas—and they have. A study by the National Cancer Institute found that the incidence of osteosarcoma was 50 percent higher in fluoridated communities in men up to age nineteen, when compared to unfluori­dated areas.121

In 1992 the New Jersey Department of Health published a study showing osteosarcomas occurred at a rate three to seven times higher in males in fluoridated areas as compared to unfluoridated areas.122 A review of three major studies found that overall, the incidence of osteosarcomas in young males increased 70 percent with fluoridation of drinking water.123

Other Cancers

Industrial exposure to airborne fluoride has been related to lung cancer in several studies. In one such study, cancer of the lung was 35 percent higher, larynx cancer 129 percent higher, and bladder cancer 84 percent higher in cryolite workers exposed to high levels of fluoride as compared to non-exposure rates.124 Cryolite, or sodium aluminum fluoride, is a mineral that occurs naturally on the west coast of Greenland and only a few other places in the world. Due to its rarity, the compound has been synthesized for use as a flux in aluminum production. Cryolite contains about 50 percent fluoride.

With ever-increasing accumulations of fluoride in our water, foods, medicines and dental treatments, dangerous side effects of high levels of fluoride exposure are being seen. And unless stringent and drastic measures are taken now, future generations will be unable to escape high-level exposure and its destructive consequences.

Fluoride and Genetic Damage

Closely connected to the cancer issue is the risk of genetic damage with low-dose fluoride exposure. In fact, twenty-two separate animal studies have already linked genetic damage to fluoride exposure. We know that DNA damage occurs constantly and that our survival is dependent on a system of healthily functioning DNA-repair enzymes whose job it is to fix injuries induced by a daily barrage of free radicals. We also know that impaired DNA repair mechanisms are associated with increased cancer risk.

In 1976 Dr. Wolfgang Klein and co-workers demonstrated that cells exposed to I ppm fluoride exhibit a 50 percent reduction in DNA-repair-enzyme activity.125 Not only does this increase cancer risk, it also encourages aggravation of degenerative diseases of the nervous system, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), as well as other degenerative diseases of aging. When unrepaired DNA damage occurs in reproductive cells, the damage is passed on to children as well.

Another study, by Dr. Aly Mohamed of the genetics department at the University of Missouri, demonstrated that as little as I ppm of fluoride could result in chromosomal damage in cells from the testes and bone marrow. Overall, the genetic damage increased with length of exposure and increasing dose. At 1 ppm, 25.7 percent of the bone marrow cells showed DNA damage at three weeks and 32.1 percent at six weeks. At 10 ppm, 35.5 percent of the marrow cells had DNA damage at three weeks and at six weeks, 46 percent were damaged. Remember that I ppm is the amount added to most municipal water systems. Because fluoride concentrations increase with time and by cooking, even 10 ppm can be attained in real life situations, especially in hot areas of the world.

Incredibly, even the studies done by Proctor & Gamble, makers of Crest toothpaste, found that I ppm of fluoride could cause genetic damage in Chinese hamsters’ ovary cells.126 The lowest dose of fluoride inducing genetic damage in human cells was found to be 0.6 ppm.

More recent evidence, presented in peer-reviewed scientific journals, clearly shows that fluoride causes chromosomal damage. For example, Dr. Anuradha and co-workers in the journal, Archives of Toxicology, July 2000, demonstrated that fluoride activates a destructive reaction in human cells (activation of caspase-3) that results in severe DNA damage.127

In another study, researchers looked for chromosomal aberrations in the white blood cells of workers in a phosphate fertilizer factory, and reported a significant elevation of such DNA damage that was both dose- and time-dependent,128 meaning that the amount of damage depended on how long workers were exposed and how concentrated the fluoride was. Remember that fluoridating water means a lifetime of exposure, and the dose is accumula­tive, since 50 percent is retained in the tissues of the body with each dose. There is even evidence of a connection between total fluoride exposure—the sum from water, food, and other beverages, and airborne fluorides—and Down’s syndrome.129

Skeletal Fluorosis: Making Us All Cripples

One of the most devastating effects of long-term, low-level fluoride exposure is skeletal damage, a condition referred to as skeletal fluorosis. In general, this condition is classified in stages, phase one presenting as arthritis-type pains and stage three as debilitating crippling. In countries with naturally high fluoride levels, skeletal fluorosis is quite common and considered a major medical disaster. Some villages have been described wherein every single resident has been afflicted with a twisted, bent spine leading to severe crippling. Death rates in such villages begin to skyrocket at about age fifty. In very advanced cases, the spine is so contorted and overgrown that the nerves and spinal cord are gradually crushed, leading to severe neurological injury.

While other countries are researching fluoride-induced problems such as skeletal fluorosis, very little is being done in the United States. In fact, cases of skeletal fluorosis are not recorded or tracked in this country, and most medical textbooks do not even mention the subject. Could it be because those who control our government, and thus our access to infor­mation, are afraid of the American public rejecting fluoridation of their drinking water because of the unavoidable dangers it poses?

In 1937 Dr. Kai Roholm of Denmark completed what is now considered a classic study of fluoride toxicity in cryolite workers. His study found that exposure to fluoride in concen­trations between 0.2-0.35 mg/kg of body weight could result in skeletal fluorosis. The severity of bone damage depended on the length of the exposure, since fluoride accumulates in the bones.

Those exposed at these levels for two-and-a-half years showed early stages of fluorosis, mainly arthritic pains. Those exposed for four-and-a-half years advanced to phase two bone changes, with increased stiffness and reduced range of motion in the joints. If the exposure continued for eleven years, there was a high incidence of crippling of the spine and other bones.

At this point, let us rejoin the saga of Harold Hodge. In the early years of the fluoridation putsch in this country, Hodge relied on and quoted Dr. Roholm’s figures in his own research, substituting pounds for Roholm’s metric units—without performing the proper mathemat­ical conversions. This allowed Dr. Hodge to eventually report that skeletal fluorosis was not a danger unless daily fluoride intake of 20-80 mg occurred for ten to twenty years. Dr. Hodge did not publicly correct this glaring and very critical error until 1979, long after his older figures had been cited repeatedly by fluoridation promoters to demonstrate the wide margin of safety for fluoride exposure.

The National Academy of Science and National Research Council also never volunteered to correct Dr. Hodge’s error. It was only the insistence of U.S. Senator Bob Graham of Florida and Dr. Robert J. Carton, a senior official at the EPA, that finally forced the public correc­tion of Hodge’s scientific debacle many decades later. At long last, it was finally established that as little as 10-20 mg of fluoride per day for ten to twenty years will cripple an other­wise healthy individual. But even these figures understate the danger, since the appearance of crippling skeletal changes is dependent not just on daily dose of fluoride, but on the total cumulative dose. For example, if you ingested or inhaled 2.5-5 mg of fluoride a day for forty years, you would have an extremely high risk of developing crippling bone damage. Bear in mind that some cities have been fluoridating their water for over fifty years now.

Professor Hardy Limeback, a leading Canadian fluoride authority and previously a strong proponent of fluoridation, has been conducting studies on the effects of water fluoridation in Canada. He is also a Professor of Dentistry at the University of Toronto. One of his findings is that people growing up in fluoridated Toronto had bone fluoride levels twice as high as those living in unfluoridated Montreal.

In 1977 the National Academy of Sciences admitted that fluoride intake in fluoridated communities was as high as 3 mg per day, rather than a previously low figure they had given of 1.5 mg per day. The bone retains fluoride and may do so at concentrations as high as 2 mg a day. The average person growing up in a fluoridated community for forty years can accumulate 10,000 ppm of fluoride. In 1993 the National Academy of Science admitted that when bone ash accumulated fluoride at levels of 7,500 to 8,000 ppm, stage two and three skeletal fluorosis was likely to occur. It is at this latter stage that we see crippling of the skeleton.

One of the greatest problems in convincing the public of the danger of adding fluoride to water is that those pushing for fluoridation have ignored studies showing the dangers of cumulative doses. Furthermore, most of their calculations leave out other sources of fluoride, such as toothpaste, mouth rinses, fluoride tablets, fluoride dental treatments, fluoride in foods, industrial airborne exposure, pesticides, and medications. Many antibi­otics, anesthetics, and other medications also contain fluoride. In fact, pesticide exposure alone can exceed the recommended optimum daily fluoride intake for both adolescents and children.

Over the past thirty years of my neurosurgical practice, I have been intrigued by the large number of spinal stenosis cases I have seen. In this condition, the bone and ligaments surrounding the spinal nerves become thickened and overgrown with numerous bone spurs. As the hole in the center of the spine narrows, it compresses the bundle of nerves contained within. These nerves supply sensation and movement to the legs, bladder, and bowels. Weakness and numbness of the legs accompanies worsening compression of the nerves, with eventual total loss of the ability to control bowels and bladder. If untreated, the person will become wheelchair-bound and depend on either a permanent catheter or an adult pad.

With the prolonged exposure of our elderly population to fluoridated drinking water, plus other sources of fluoride, it is no wonder that we are seeing this condition more and more. Incredibly, the medical community has expressed no interest in pursuing the possible connection to fluoride exposure.

Fluoride, Fractures and Fragile Bones

The second most frequently cited claim of fluoride’s health benefits is that it strengthens bones. Many doctors have even suggested it as a treatment for osteoporosis. But carefully conducted studies have demonstrated conclusively that not only does it not strengthen the long bones, such as the femur and radius, it actually weakens them. To date we have over eight studies reported in peer-reviewed medical journals demonstrating increased hip fractures with fluoridation. Most studies have shown that fluoride treatments do increase the density of the axial skeleton (the spine) but clinical studies have not shown a significant reduction in spinal fractures in the elderly.

In one review of all articles reporting on the use of fluoride to treat postmenopausal osteo­porosis, Dr. Louis Avioli, professor at the Washington University School of Medicine, concluded that the use of fluoride was accompanied by so many complications and side effects that it was not worth using in cases of postmenopausal osteoporosis, especially since it increased the risk of hip fractures and other stress fractures in the arms and legs.

One study examined Utah’s Mormon community and demonstrated that fluoridation increased the incidence of hip fracture by 27 percent in women and 41 percent in men.130

Another interesting study by Dr. Mary Fran Sowers and co-workers examined 827 women aged twenty to eighty years in three rural Iowa communities over a five-year period for bone mineral density and incidence of fractures.131 The study was unusual for several reasons. First, they looked at both young, premenopausal women as well as postmenopausal women. Second, they compared water systems not only containing varying amounts of fluoride but also concentrations of calcium.

What they found was that the communities with the highest fluoride water content also had the highest incidence of fractures and reductions in bone mineral density when compared to communities with higher calcium contents and no or low amounts of fluoride. Most shocking was that even the young women in fluoridated communities had significantly reduced bone mineral density than did women in the control community or in communities with high calcium levels in the drinking water. Bone mineral density measures the strength of the bone and estimates the likelihood of fracture.

The young women, as well as postmenopausal older women, had a significantly higher risk of having fractures of the wrist, hip, and spine than did those living in the control commu­nity or the community containing high calcium levels in the drinking water. The incidence of multiple fractures in all age groups of the study was 220 percent higher in the commu­nity with high drinking water fluoride content.

The importance of appropriate calcium intake cannot be overemphasized. Fluoride drasti­cally lowers calcium levels by binding tightly with this essential mineral and removes substantial amounts of calcium from the blood, bones, and teeth, which become deminer­alized and weakened. One study using a CT scanner to measure bone density found that fluoride did increase the amount of cancellous bone (spongy, lattice-like bony tissue) but reduced the strength of the cortical bone (firm outer layer).132 So, it may be that fluoride weakens the bone by diverting calcium from the cortex of the bone, which accounts for most of its strength, to the cancellous bone, which provides very little strength. Fluoride also is toxic to osteoblast type cells, which normally lay down calcium in the cortical layer of the bones.

In the past I have been a critic of our nation’s obsession with calcium supplementation. Doctors have been leading the charge to convince women, especially postmenopausal women, to gulp down a daily allotment of calcium in every form imaginable, from Turns to crushed oyster shells. My objection has been based on the effect of excess calcium on the degenerative process, especially in the brain—a condition I discussed earlier—yet, supple­mental calcium may actually afford some protection against some of the toxic effects of fluoride, especially dental and skeletal fluorosis. Unfortunately, one fairly recent study indicates that even calcium supplementation may not be protective against fluoride-induced calcium loss.133 If this is so, the only solution is to remove fluoride from drinking water and teeth-cleaning products.

Taken together, these studies indicate that certain groups of individuals are at significantly increased risk of fractures when consuming fluoridated drinking water and using fluoride­ containing products. This includes people with low calcium intake, renal disease, parathy­roid disorders, genetic risk for osteoporosis, and diets low in magnesium and vitamin C intake.

Fluoride and the Brain

As we have seen, the brain is one of the most metabolically active organs in the body, highly dependent on its energy supply for proper functioning. As a consequence, anything that interferes with energy production will interfere with nervous system function. Fluoride poisons the enzymes used to make that energy.

Because many toxicology studies amply demonstrated fluoride’s toxic effects on cells in experimental animals, one of the chief questions that kept popping up was: what effect does fluoride have on brain function? Available evidence indicated that the effects can be quite severe and cumulative. A summary of several reports on fluoride toxicity of occupationally exposed workers found that 25 percent of the workers exposed to cryolite who developed skeletal fluorosis also showed signs of nervous system effects such as difficulty thinking, fatigue, and memory problems.134 Similar neurological effects were seen in other workers exposed to high levels of fluoride.

Other studies have described generalized progressive fatigue and a decline in mental acuity seen in persons living within three miles of a factory emitting hydrogen fluoride gas. Unlike cryolite workers, these individuals were exposed to much lower levels, emphasizing the extreme toxicity of fluoride. In another experiment, volunteers were asked to submit to a special psychomotor test in which they were to track a moving target before and after receiving a drop of water under their tongue, containing varying doses of fluoride (0.1,1, 10 and 100 ppm).135 The fluoride resulted in an increased rate of errors in attempting the test. One unusual finding was that the two highest doses of fluoride actually increased response time, a phenomenon that may be related to excitotoxicity.

The Developing Brain

It is accepted that a baby’s developing nervous system is much more vulnerable to toxins than the mature adult brain. China, which has areas with naturally high fluoride levels in the water, has supplied us with much information on the toxic effects of fluoride. One study compared two villages matched for population, one with 4.12 ppm fluoride in the water system and the other with 0.91 ppm fluoride. It was found that children born in the high­ fluoride village had a statistically significant lower median IQ as compared to its sister city. Dental fluorosis was present in 86 percent of children in the high-fluoride village and only 14 percent in the low fluoride village. You may recall that the ADA, as well as the U.S. regulatory agencies, insist that at 4 ppm, fluoride is safe for children and pregnant women.

Other studies have confirmed the findings of the Chinese research. In fact, one study found that there was a ten-point drop in IQ in the medium-severe fluorosis areas compared to low fluoride areas.136 It is important to realize that these effects conform to a bell-shaped curve, with the number of children having IQs below seventy increasing as much as 21 percent, as well as a marked decrease in the number of children having IQs in the higher range. So you have more severely impaired children as well as fewer highly intelligent children. Fluoridation represents nothing less than the chemical dumbing-down of future generations.

Two Critical Studies

Two fairly recent studies have demonstrated the brain toxicity of fluoride in animals. In both studies, fluoride concentrations in the brains of test animals were equivalent to those achieved in humans through fluoridation programs, other environmental fluoride accumula­tions, use in toothpaste and mouthwashes, and dental treatments. It is important to remember that these studies were concerned with total body accumulations. With time, just as we saw with mercury, the retained fluoride reaches a level where it is extremely toxic.

In the first experiment, reported by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix and co-workers, 532 rats were exposed to different doses of fluoride in drinking water during three stages of life: prenatal, weaning, and as adults.137 In the prenatal part of the experiment, researchers injected a fluoride solution under the mother rats’ skins on the seventeenth through nineteenth days of pregnancy. When born, some of the baby rats demonstrated unusual hyperactivity. Strangely, only the males were affected.

The concentration of fluoride used in this phase of the experiment was comparable to that already seen in some parts of the country, and as the amount of fluoride increases in our environment due to widespread water fluoridation and contamination of foods, these levels will be increasingly more common. For example, humans ingesting drinking water containing 5-10 ppm fluoride will have similar blood fluoride levels as the animals used in these experiments. Plasma fluoride levels of 1.44 ppm, a level almost six times higher than the toxic levels seen in these experiments, have been found in children treated with fluoride gels in dentists’ offices.138

In the Mullenix experiment, hyperactivity appeared to be caused by fluoride acting on the hippocampus of the temporal lobes of the brain, a part of the brain that plays a vital role in emotions, learning, and behavior. The reason only newborn males were affected can be attributed to gender-specific differences in brain development. We already know that many drugs act differently on males and females at this early stage of life.

Behavioral effects were different when animals were exposed to fluoride either soon after birth or as adults. The subjects in this case became sluggish, like human couch potatoes. Specific behavioral impacts depended on the timing of fluoride exposure during brain devel­opment. There was also a direct correlation between the level of fluoride accumulated in the brain (hippocampus) and behavioral effects in adult females, but not adult males.

Researchers also examined seven different regions of test animals’ brains after fluoride exposure and found the substance in all seven areas. This study is particularly valuable because previous researchers had insisted that fluoride could not breach the blood-brain barrier.139 It also proved that with long-term exposure, fluoride not only enters but accumu­lates widely in all areas of the brain.

The experiment is noteworthy not only for its scientific findings but also because the Forsyth Dental Research Institute, which commissioned it, attempted to destroy the research when it became obvious that the results would damage the fluoridation campaign. So who is Dr. Phyllis Mullenix? Her credentials are impeccable: she is considered one of the top toxicologists in the country, and at the time of her fluoride research held major research positions at Harvard University’s Department of Neuropathology and Psychiatry and the Forsyth Dental Research Institute.

The design of Dr. Mullenix’s research project was one of the most advanced and objectively based known. It used a computer pattern recognition system that removed usual human biases from interpretation of test results. For example, normal behavioral patterns of newborn and adult rodents were written into the computer program itself, producing a rigid standard for interpretation of results on all the test animals.

In one interview, she said the first portent that her findings had become unwelcome came when she was ordered to present her findings to the National Institute of Dental Research, a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). As she walked the Institute’s corridors she began to realize that she was not dealing with objective, unbiased observers. The walls were plastered with posters extolling the “Miracle of Fluoride” and ridiculed those opposed to fluoridation. She was preparing to give a lecture on the dangers of fluoridation to fluor­idation zealots!

She was quickly dismissed from her position at Forsyth after her presentation to the National Institute of Dental Research. Why? Because her research did not pertain to the dental field, they said. I ask: if fluoride toxicity doesn’t pertain to the dental field, what does?

She was also pried for the name of the journal scheduled to publish her groundbreaking work. She refused, knowing inordinate pressure would be applied to the editorial staff of the journal to retract the article. Prior to the NIH’s vicious attack on her character and the integrity of her science, she had submitted her research findings to one of the most presti­gious journals in the field of neurotoxicology, the Journal of Neurotoxicology and Teratology. It had been immediately accepted for publication as a new and important finding in the field of toxicology.

Not long after her dismissal, the Forsyth Dental Research Institute received a quarter-million dollar grant from the Colgate Company, and before she could retrieve her specially designed equipment from their building it was destroyed by a mysteriously appearing water leak in the ceiling.

Following her dismissal from the Forsyth Institute, Dr. Mullenix received an unfunded appointment at Boston’s Children’s Hospital. In a moment of unguarded candor, officials there admitted they were frightened of the fluoride supporters’ power to evaporate funding for “out of line” institutions.

Another vital piece of research involved a study of the brain effects of combined aluminum and fluoride exposure. This experiment is especially important because these two metals frequently occur together in foods and beverages. Aluminum occurs naturally to some extent in drinking water, but is also added as a clarifying agent. Given that fluorine and fluoride compounds are some of the most reactive substances known to man, this fact is of particular significance when we are talking about fluoridated drinking water and the aluminum containers in which so many drinks and food products are sold.

For this reason, any fluoride-containing product in an aluminum container, including fluor­idated toothpaste in aluminum tubes, aluminum cans, aluminum cookware, and aluminum­containing foods mixed with fluoridated water, can potentially form the harmful aluminum fluoride compound AIF3.

Entry of aluminum into the brain past the blood-brain barrier often involves special carrier molecules or combinations thereof. For example, albumin can carry aluminum into the brain, especially when magnesium deficiency is present. Recently, it has been shown that when aluminum combines with fluoride there is increased transport of both into the brain.

In an attempt to further examine this process, and study the resulting brain toxicity of the mixture, Varner and co-workers gave twenty-seven adult male Long-Evans rats distilled water containing fluoride as either aluminum fluoride at 0.5 ppm or sodium fluoride at 2.1 ppm.140 Because relative fluorine concentrations in the two compounds differ, the doses were calculated so that both groups of animals received a comparable dose based on the form in which it was ingested.

While there were no differences in the body weights of the two groups, the animals who drank the aluminum fluoride water died in greater numbers. At the end of the experiment, researchers examined brain, kidney, liver, and spleen tissues, observing several important effects. First, the animals drinking the aluminum fluoride water demonstrated a progressive decline in appearance, with sparse hair growth, dry, flaky, copper-colored skin and a generalized unhealthy appearance. This was thought to be secondary to the damaging effect on the animals’ kidneys, since aluminum levels in the animals drinking the aluminum-fluoride water were nearly double that of the control animals and animals drinking sodium fluoride treated water alone.

Additionally, animals who drank the aluminum fluoride water had brain levels of aluminum higher than animals drinking the sodium fluoride water, and levels over twice as high as those drinking plain distilled water. Control animals had both aluminum and fluoride in their brain tissue. This was because the Purina Rodent Lab Chow that all the animals ate contained from 150-8,300 ppm aluminum, and also contained fluoride.

This is important because there is a strong link between brain aluminum levels and neurode­generative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Histological examinations of test animals’ brains indicated that damage was concentrated in the left hemisphere of the brain, with a significant reduction in neuron density. This loss of brain cells was greater in animals drinking aluminum fluoride water than in those given sodium fluoride or distilled water. The damaged neurons exhibited clumping, enhanced protein staining, and destructive chromosomal changes. Similar damage was seen in the blood vessels supplying this part of the brain as well, a consistent finding in Alzheimer’s disease.

This type of damage to the brain’s blood vessels could lead to the same changes in the blood­brain barrier we see in Alzheimer’s disease. Animals exposed to both aluminum fluoride and sodium fluoride showed a buildup of vascular 13-amyloid in the lateral posterior thalamus. 13-amyloid is a commonly seen inclusion in the brains of those with Alzheimer’s disease.

Especially frightening is that severe brain changes were observed following consumption of water containing only 0.5 ppm of the aluminum fluoride compound. You will recall that most communities are adding 1-1.5 ppm fluoride to drinking water. When combined with aluminum naturally found in drinking water, as well as numerous other sources of aluminum, an extremely brain toxic compound is formed. This brings into serious question the assurances being given by the ADA and the EPA that a fluoride level of 1 ppm in drinking water is safe. You must also take into consideration that the developing brain and the elderly brain are much more sensitive to such injuries.

Many conditions in the elderly make them much more susceptible. For example, they are more likely to be deficient in antioxidant nutrients, have long-term brain cell injury secondary to aging and disease, suffer from cerebrovascular disease, have other metal toxic­ities and low calcium levels. With aging, all of these conditions lead to severely weakened brain cells that are much more sensitive to injury by such toxins.

Other Effects on the Brain

An early change that has been observed in the brains of those developing Parkinson’s disease is a significant reduction in the energy molecule, CoQ10. Animal experiments have indicated that chronic fluoride exposure at levels equal to accumulated concentrations high enough to produce fluorosis can significantly lower brain CoQI0 levels,141 which may be the result of a dramatic increase in brain free-radical formation caused by the fluoride.

Fluoride, and especially aluminum fluoride, has been shown to interfere with brain cells’ ability to form their normal skeletal structure (called a cytoskeleton).142 This process is vital during fetal brain development, and it also plays a significant role in the ongoing health of brain cells.

We know that cell membranes playa vital role in all cell functions, and their exact compo­sition must be carefully regulated to preserve normal functions. One recent study found that rats who were fed fluoride for seven months experienced a 10-20 percent reduction in brain phospholipid contents, depending on the concentration of fluoride used.143 Fluoride when combined with aluminum was found to inhibit an important cell-membrane enzyme called phospholipase D. Interestingly, neither fluoride nor aluminum alone had any effect on the enzyme; it was inhibitory only when they were combined.

One of the most common sources of aluminum fluoride complexes is in liquids packaged in aluminum cans, a combination that is especially hazardous with acidic fruit juices and diet drinks. Acidic juices leach aluminum from the wall of the can and disperse it throughout the juice. Most canned fruit juices, especially grape juice, also contain added fluoride. Grape juice can contain as much as 6 ppm fluoride. Remember, the fluoride itself is highly reactive and will leach aluminum from the can as well. Soft drinks also present special hazards. While all soft drinks containing fluoride will leach aluminum from the can, diet sodas may be worse than regular sodas because the fluoride content, at least in one study, was higher in the diet drinks. Although most aluminum cans now have inner linings, the coating may be defective and can also be fractured during shipping.

To prevent local supplies from altering a soda’s standardized taste, most water used in soft drinks is normally filtered of all impurities or is manufactured using distilled water. Ironically, the Coca-Cola Company bottles and sells water (under the name Dasani) purified by the reverse osmosis method, which removes fluoride from water, but their soda actually contains fluoride. Presumably, Dasani is the same water they use to make their soft drinks and it would make sense that Coke should actually be fluoride free. That it isn’t would indicate that they are purposefully adding fluoride back in.

Furthermore, the longer a canned drink sits, especially at higher temperatures, the more aluminofluoride compound will be created in the drink. This would be a major considera­tion, for example, in the millions of diet soft drinks donated to soldiers in the Persian Gulf. These drinks sat in the blazing heat, over 105° F, for weeks. In addition, the drinks contained the toxic sweetener, aspartame, which in the heat breaks down very quickly into the carcino­genic compound, diketopiperizine, as well as formaldehyde and formic acid.

Another potential source of aluminofluoride is fluoridated toothpaste packaged in aluminum tubes. Toothpaste typically contains from 1,000-1,500 ppm fluoride, a very high concentration of fluoride. In fact, this much fluoride could easily kill a child or an elderly person with low calcium levels or a bad heart.

Other Effects of Fluoride

Because of its ability to poison enzymes and react with many biological components, fluoride can cause mischief in many parts of the body. Another important property of fluoride is its intense affinity for hydrogen. Hydrogen bonds are found throughout the biological system, but normally have considerably less binding strength than we see with fluoride. The reason this is important is that healthy biological molecules depend on a partic­ular shape or conformation to work properly. Even minor alterations in this precise shape will cause the molecule to become ineffective. When fluoride binds to these molecules so intensely, the shape of the molecule is significantly altered, and as a result many critical reactions do not take place properly within cells.

Of particular importance are the reactions that occur between fluoride and proteins, many of which make up vital enzymes used by the cells for everything from energy production to DNA repair.

Fluoride and the Thyroid

Because of the problem of fluoride accumulation in our environment, serious multiple organ disorders are likely to begin occurring soon throughout the population. For instance, there is compelling evidence that the thyroid accumulates fluoride from the environment. In a study of fluoride concentrations in various human organs, Yiamouyiarmis reported that the thyroid gland contained 4 ppm of fluoride after prolonged exposure.144 Also, in a chart in which he compares thyroid fluoride concentrations of human body tissues before and after water fluoridation programs were instituted in the 1940s, he found that no organ contained more than 0.68 ppm fluoride before 1940. This change represents a drastic accumulation of this toxic substance in our population, caused purely by the fluoridation program. Further, only the kidney, at 2.3 ppm, came anywhere close to the thyroid gland in its ability to accumulate fluoride.

According to the USPHS, we are now approaching daily consumption of fluoride in the range of 8 mg/day—a huge amount. Fluoride tends to accumulate in most organs, and there is good evidence that this dose is now accumulating at an increasing rate. Even the notorious Dr. Harold Hodge admitted that chronic exposure to fluoride could alter thyroid structure and function.145

Another study using rats found that adding 1 ppm of fluoride to their drinking water could significantly lower thyroid levels of the hormones T4 and T3.146 In truth, this study does not demonstrate effects of equivalent doses of fluoride to humans, since fluoride is absorbed poorly in both rats and mice. Dr. Mullenix found that rats and mice must receive a dose of fluoride fifteen times higher in their drinking water to reach equivalent human blood levels. What that means is that you would have to give a mouse 15 ppm fluoride to test the effects of 1 ppm fluoride in humans.

A more recent study using 288 mice found that the occurrence of goiter, combined with either a deficiency or excess of iodine, was dependent on fluoride exposure.147 In this exper­iment, fluoride excess caused stimulation of the thyroid for one hundred days followed by 150 days of depressed function. Researchers also found that the rate and severity of dental and skeletal fluorosis was higher in the iodine deficient animals exposed to fluoride. Not only does fluoride affect thyroid function, low thyroid function also enhances fluoride­induced destruction of teeth and bones.

Numerous other studies have also linked thyroid problems with elevated fluoride exposure. If we examine the incidence of goiter (hypothyroidism) in different areas of the world based on water fluoride content, we see some remarkable parallels. For example, India has a very high incidence of goiter and a very high incidence of fluorosis (though, as I discussed above, fluoride occurs naturally in that country’s water supplies). Belgium, on the other hand, has a moderately low incidence of both fluorosis and goiter. In China, we see the same pattern: very high fluoride levels accompanied by a very high incidence of goiter. This same pattern has held up in ten countries examined worldwide. When we combine the epidemiological evidence with the above-cited research we see strong evidence for a connection between hypothyroidism and fluoridation.

With the strong connection between early hypothyroidism and intelligence, it is obvious that the importance of this connection goes far beyond just not having energy to get through the day, or suffering from cold intolerance. The thyroid gland plays a major role in the forma­tion of the brain during early development, and hypothyroidism during this stage can lead to severe mental retardation (cretinism). It has also been noted that the incidence of Down’s syndrome is 30 percent higher in fluoridated communities than unfluoridated ones.148 Down’s syndrome is associated with thyroid dysfunction.

Sexual Maturity, Infertility, and Fluoride

A recent study compared males living in areas with high fluoride levels in drinking water to men matched in age who live in very low-fluoride areas, and found the first group had significantly lowered testosterone levels.149 This study used two test groups of men drinking high-fluoride water, one group of which suffered from fluorosis and one group who drank the same water but did not have fluorosis. A separate set of controls consisted of men who drank only water containing very low fluoride levels. The lowest testosterone levels were observed in the men with fluorosis who drank high-fluoride water. Those without fluorosis who drank that same high-fluoride water also had low testosterone, but not as low as the men with fluorosis. The only men with normal testosterone levels were those who drank the water containing low fluoride concentrations.

Higher levels of fluoride have also been shown to reduce sperm motility and produce alter­ations in the area of the testes that produce sperm.150 Other studies have demonstrated that even low levels of fluoride can render mice infertile.151

For the globalist seeking to control world population, water fluoridation could certainly offer an effective method of achieving an international reduction in births without having to announce an unpopular plan of enforced contraception. The world’s population could be significantly reduced in the guise of preventing tooth decay in children, and the effect would increase with time as the contamination of foodstuffs and medications continued to grow. I am not saying that is the purpose of fluoridation, but it could be a reason for its continued support by high-ranking government officials, foundations, and those on the international scene.

Things They Never Told You

Over a hundred years ago, Frederic Bastiat, the brilliant nineteenth century French econo­mist, wrote an essay titled, “What is Seen and What Is Not Seen,” which attempted to show that economic activity does not exist in well-controlled isolation, and in fact often engen­ders a series of unintended, unfortunate, and uncontrollable effects. He says, “Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them.”152

Bastiat’s analysis describes perfectly the sinister history of water fluoridation, an economic event masquerading as a public health campaign that involved, and still involves, enormous amounts of money and powerful political influence—and uncountable tragic side effects. No one in any position of real power has ever dared to clash with these powerful forces. I can only hope this book will begin to change that.

Fluoride Overflow: Accidents That Can Sicken and Kill

Most of us never give a second thought to the safety issues of how fluoride is added to our drinking water. As with so much, we just leave it up to the “experts.” Few of us are even aware that numerous communities across the nation shut down their fluoridation equipment at the turn of the millennium because officials were afraid the equipment might fail, allowing dangerous fluoride overflows into drinking water. I ask: if it could happen during Y2K, why shouldn’t we be concerned that it could happen at anytime? After all, this equip­ment must operate, usually by computer, all the time, adding just the right concentration of fluoride to the water. The truth is that exactly such a thing has happened. People became ill, and some have even died as a result. So, you’re asking, why haven’t we heard about this? The obvious answer is that the people who have so much invested in fluoridation have kept it quiet out of fear that it would make all too clear to the public the real dangers presented by water fluoridation.

In August 1993 residents of the little town of Popularville, Mississippi, became the unfor­tunate victims of a fluoride overspill. It came to light when patrons of a Pizza Inn suddenly began to get sick, complaining of stomach cramps, nausea, and burning in their mouths. The manager called city officials and learned that his customers had been poisoned by an overflow of fluoride at the water treatment plant. Fifteen people ended up in the hospital, and over forty are known to have been poisoned. Given the scale of this disaster, many others must have been affected, but they never reported it to town officials. What those unfortunate people didn’t know, and weren’t told, is that the sudden elevation in fluoride would produce silent injury to their bones, thyroid glands, and brains that might not manifest itself for years or even decades. Pregnant women carrying developing babies, and small children exposed to these high levels of fluoride have a high risk of having permanent damage to their brain, as Dr. Mullenix’s research has so cogently demonstrated.

A similar accident occurred in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1986. This time fluoride levels reached 51 ppm for over twelve hours: remember normal levels are 1 ppm. At least fifty ­five people suffered full clinical effects of acute toxicity, with vomiting, diarrhea, fever, and skin rashes. Again, we can only guess at the extent of the chronic effects caused by the accumulated dose of this high fluoride level.

More recently the city of Middletown, Maryland, experienced a toxic spill of even more horrendous proportions. In this case fluoride overflowed to the tune of70 ppm, much higher than the level set by the EPA as the limit for serious toxicity. City residents were warned by radio and television not to drink the water, but those without radios or TV sets, or who were not tuned in, suffered the consequences. Worse still, city officials did not even conduct a follow-up survey to determine the extent of human injury caused by this massive spill. Why? Because they didn’t want a public record of the event, and certainly did not want the general public to be aware of the health dangers caused by the spill.

The highest recorded levels of fluoride occurred in Hooper Bay, Alaska, when the water tested at 150 ppm after a major spill! One death was attributed to the spill and 260 people were poisoned before the problem could be contained. The accident was explained away by officials who concluded that the spill had been caused by old equipment and an untrained operator. Another spill, this one in Chicago, caused the deaths of three dialysis patients and made five others extremely sick. Unlike the others, this overflow was actually investigated by the Centers for Disease Control, yet no public report has been forthcoming.

During the month of February 1992, Rice Lake, Wisconsin’s fluoridation equipment failed spewed extremely elevated concentrations of fluoride into the water system for two days before residents were notified. Fluoride levels reached 20 ppm during this time period and later measurements showed the water contained 92 ppm of fluoride. Approximately forty children suffered abdominal pains, vomiting, and diarrhea after attending an arts and crafts show at their school.

Don’t assume that the city officials will necessarily tell you about an accidental spill. In the city of Annapolis, Maryland, in 1979, malfunctioning fluoridation equipment poured high levels of fluoride into the water system for nine days, during which time the city officials issued no warning to the public concerning the hazard. City council members were not informed of the tragic event for six more days. When asked why the city had kept this secret from the public and elected representatives, a public health official stated that he didn’t want to endanger the fluoridation program. During this period of protectionist silence, one dialysis patient died and one other was left seriously brain injured. The damaged patient’s wife sued the city for $480 million, and the case was eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

Most Americans have never heard of these accidents, and, as a result, no one seems to worry much about the safety of the water we are drinking. But, in addition to the cases I have cited above, numerous other incidences have occurred throughout the United States — and continue to occur. It would make sense that many smaller spills probably occur every day and are never reported. It seems a good time to start worrying!

Environmental Accumulation of Fluoride

One of the most obvious problems associated with fluoridation of the water supply, completely ignored by the fluoridation proponents, are the accumulative effects of adding this toxic chemical to drinking water. Unfortunately, those who have been entrusted to protect us from public harm have not yet officially recognized it as an obvious hazard. And that is actually part of the problem: we trust governmental organizations, such as the EPA, OSHA, and the CDC, to look after us. We believe that they will always tell the truth, and that they are above reproach. As you have now seen, nothing could be further from the truth. We must start thinking for ourselves and not accept the word of the chosen elite and —experts” in society who have a vested interest in continuing the dangerous practice of fluoridation.

When fluoride is added to something as ubiquitous as water, accumulation in the environ­ment is inevitable. This means that fluoride levels will not only accumulate in food products and beverages, but the rate of that accumulation begins to increase exponentially. Fluoride already occurs in numerous medications, anesthetics, toothpaste, mouthwashes, dental treat­ments, fluid replacement for children, foods, fruit juices, teas, milk, meats, bottled water, industrial exposure, pesticides, animal feeds, and contaminated ground water. It has been estimated that we are now consuming 8 mg of fluoride daily in the United States. This is eight times higher than even the proponents of fluoridation recommended as necessary and safe for human consumption, an amount that has led to 30-60 percent of America’s children suffering from dental fluorosis, and to a growing number of the elderly suffering from crippling skeletal fluorosis. Furthermore, nervous system injury inevitably accompa­nies these conditions.

Given the strong connection between bone cancer and fluoride exposure, how many young men are dying or being crippled due to this insane policy? Likewise, how many are suffering from hypothyroidism, cancer of the thyroid, ADD, autism, intellectual dysfunction, and an early onset of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s dementia, and other neurological disorders? All of these conditions can be expected to increase, and to occur at an earlier age, as the total fluoride content in our food and water supply increases. We should not forget that fluoride has been shown to significantly decrease fertility in men. As total daily exposure rises to 15- 20 mg a day, what will happen to our population? These are serious questions that must be answered.

Once the majority of our food supplies and water supplies are contaminated, along with our soils, no one will be able to escape the hazards of fluoride toxicity. Just think of it. The apple you eat for a snack will contain fluoride, so will the chicken you eat for dinner, the orange or grape juice you have at breakfast, the potatoes you eat with your sandwich, the sugar you put in your coffee, butter for your toast, even your cereal! When foods are washed in water containing fluoride, they become contaminated. When you cook your vegetables in fluori­dated water, the water evaporates, and the concentration of the fluoride increases. Soon, a single day’s food consumption will also mean an unacceptably high level of fluoride exposure.

One of the greatest sources of food- and beverage-borne fluoride is tea. One study found concentrations of 50-125 ppm in fifteen varieties of tea, a dramatic rise in just the last two decades. A Polish study found levels up to 340 ppm in sixteen varieties of teas. Why tea? Because some plants tend to accumulate fluoride in greater concentrations than others.

This contamination of tea by fluoridation is a double tragedy because tea is an excellent source of some very important anticancer flavonoids and antioxidants. By contaminating teas with fluoride, one is denied safe access to these remarkable medicinal phytochemicals. Decaffeinated coffee is also contaminated by fluoride, because often the water used to decaffeinate the coffee contains fluoride.

Shrimp and canned sardines can have very high levels of fluoride (61 mg/kg). Infant cereals may contain anywhere from 0.9-2.1 ppm fluoride. Strained meats, also used in infant and toddler foods, can contain as much as 5.2 ppm fluoride. Deboned beef may contain 14-42 mg/kg of fluoride. Commercial grape juices contain as much as 6 ppm fluoride, as do most American wines. This is because the grapes in some vineyards are sprayed with fluoride solutions as a pesticide, which soaks readily into the grapes.

From these examples, we can see that already we have seriously contaminated our food and beverage supply. But, there is one instance where the danger is higher than in all of these examples, and that is drinks packaged in aluminum cans and bottles, including beers, fruit juices, sodas, and other popular drinks. As we shall see later, aluminum is also very toxic, especially to the nervous system. And, as we have seen, when aluminum is combined with fluoride, even in minute concentrations, it forms a very powerful brain toxin.

So in the case of diet drinks in aluminum cans, the very brain-toxic aluminum fluoride compound co-exists with multiple toxins found in aspartame, thus creating the most powerful government-approved toxic soup imaginable. With the strong association among aluminum, excitotoxins, aluminum fluoride complexes, and Alzheimer’s disease, it would be completely irresponsible to encourage people to consume this toxic mixture. Yet, this is done literally billions of times every year in advertising. It is important to remember that the aluminum can has been around for only about three decades, and most toxin-related diseases take years of accumulation to produce the full clinical expression of the disorder.

A commonly used pesticide, Norflurazon, also contains a large amount of fluoride. It is used on numerous crops including apples, raisins, potatoes, lettuce, blueberries, strawberries ,and tomatoes. The fluoride not only clings tenaciously to the skin of the fruits and vegetables, but also can soak into the pulp of the plant as well. Once the “fresh vegetables” arrive at your supermarket, they are placed in display bins and intermittently sprayed with a fine mist of tap water that often is fluoridated, adding further to the fluoride burden of the plant.

My children loved the taste of one brand of orange juice from Florida, but because of my research in this area, I decided to call the headquarters of the orange juice company and ask if they used local drinking water. Their representative said, “Yes.” I then asked if the local water was fluoridated and again she answered, “Yes.” After a long pause she asked me if I was allergic to fluoride. I preceded to tell her of fluoride’s toxicity.

Because orange juice contains so many phytochemicals, shown in numerous tests to have powerful health benefits including anticancer effects, I am hesitant to tell people to stop drinking orange juice or eating oranges. A safer course may be to squeeze your own from organically grown oranges. You must investigate the organic grower, though, because some use fluoride-containing pesticides.

If your schedule will not permit this, I would suggest reconstituting low-acid orange juice concentrate using distilled water. Unfortunately, the same safeguards do not apply to grape juice concentrate, since fluoride is mixed with the grape concentrate in rather high concentrations.

Dental Fluorosis, a Measure of Toxicity to the Brain

Unfortunately, there are no studies in which brain levels of fluoride have been measured in humans, particularly comparing fluoridated to unfluoridated areas. But, we do have one good general measure. We know that the presence of dental fluorosis indicates toxicity to other parts of the body including the brain. A study done by the National Institute of Dental Research in the mid-1980s found that 66 percent of children growing up in fluoridated communities showed signs of Dental fluorosis.153 The incidence is certainly higher today. Obviously, we are in a crisis situation.

Fluoridation defenders, and those who support the use of fluoride for alleged prevention of tooth decay, respond that dental fluorosis is not a major concern; it is merely a cosmetic problem. This is a very dangerous lie. Dental fluorosis provides a measure of fluoride accumulation within the bones, thyroid, brain and other organs. In India, where water fluoride levels are naturally high, dental fluorosis occurs in virtually the entire population. If we do not stop the fluoridation process, this could happen in our own country.

The Straw that Broke the Camel’s Back

If all this isn’t enough, dental and pediatric societies encourage their members to promote fluoridation treatments, as well as fluoridation of community water supplies. Numerous patients and friends have told me their pediatricians tell them to add fluoride pills to baby formula, and to start their children on fluoride treatments as soon as they are old enough. These experts have even encouraged adding fluoride to Pedialyte, an electrolyte fluid mixture primarily used for sick babies. This is unconscionable! These pediatricians are taking the word of the American Dental Association, which as we have seen, has a vested interest in promoting the use of a toxic product.

Dentists tell young parents that their children should use fluoridated toothpaste and are even promoting a fluoride varnish for these young children, a varnish which releases a continuous supply of fluoride into the mouth and is reapplied every six months or every year.

The ADA also suggests that only a pea-sized portion of toothpaste be used and that children below the age of six be supervised by their parents while brushing with fluoridated tooth­paste. The Association began to issue this warning as a result of the growing public discus­sion of fluoride toxicity by opponents of fluoridation. As we all know, few parents in fact abide by this precaution, and many small children load their toothbrushes with a huge glob of toothpaste and brush unsupervised. I have spoken to many parents who say their small children walk around the house sucking on their toothpaste-soaked toothbrush. Toothpaste contains anywhere from 1,000-1,500 ppm fluoride, enough to kill any small child. With such a huge glob of toothpaste, the child may absorb 10-20 ppm fluoride. When they complain of a stomach ache or develop behavioral problems, parents rarely connect the fluoride consumption to the problem.

Worse still, our nation’s marketing-obsessed culture encourages manufacturers to create toothpastes that appeal to children’s love of sweets. Where is the sense in adding such copious amounts of sweetener to a product that’s supposed to prevent cavities? One brand, called Barbie Sparkling Bubble Fruit Toothpaste, made by the Colgate Company, is both sweetened and fruit-flavored. Another, by Oral-B, is labeled Fruity Flavor Anticavity Fluoride Toothpaste. Both tubes carry the standard warning to keep the product out of the reach of children under six years of age, and to seek professional help or contact the local poison control center should the child swallow this product; yet both these products also bear the ADA’s seal of approval.

So let’s review. Fluoride is so toxic you should supervise children under age six while they are brushing, never let them use more than a pea-sized portion of toothpaste, and you should also be sure they do not swallow the toothpaste. But then, to encourage the children to brush, you put Barbie’s name on it, plus you make the toothpaste sweet and fruity—which encour­ages them to swallow it. Finally, there are dental professors who say that children under six shouldn’t brush with fluoridated toothpaste at all, but then the ADA endorses these products. A somewhat schizophrenic policy to say the least.

The Grand Deception

The form of fluoride being added to our water supply has never been tested in laboratory experiments. Virtually all laboratory experiments use either sodium fluoride or a close chemical relative. The only large, long-term study ever done using the type of fluoride­hexafluorosilicic acid or sodium hexafluorosilicate—being added to drinking water, is now being conducted on millions of unsuspecting individuals in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and Great Britain.

Remember that the fluoride being added to our water supplies is obtained from the smoke­stack scrubbers of fertilizer and metal factories. This toxic goo contains more than just fluoride. It also contains arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lead, and polonuim-210, a radioactive element that decays into lead. Polonium-210 emits five thousand times more alpha-radiation than an equal amount of radium. Despite numerous efforts by concerned scientists, even those working for the EPA, not one study has been commissioned by anyone—in either government or private industry—to study the toxicity of fluorosilicic acid on humans.

It is also known that fluoridating water supplies increases the amount of lead in the drinking water substantially. A Canadian study found that lead levels were twice as high in fluori­dated water systems when compared to unfluoridated systems. A Dartmouth University study of 280,000 children also linked fluoridation with high lead levels in children. This is because fluoride is so reactive it leaches lead from pipes and lead-lined faucet fittings. According to Dr. Robert Carton, who spent twenty years as an EPA scientist, when the cities of Seattle, Washington, and Thermont, Maryland, stopped fluoridating their water, lead levels dropped by half.

With all the concern about lead toxicity in the young, especially its effects on neurological functions, should we just ignore this well-established fact? Lead, even in very small concen­trations, can have a profound effect on the developing nervous system leading to significant impairment in learning and behavior. Elevated lead levels in children have also been well­correlated to hyperactivity, substance abuse, increased violent behavior, and crime. Combine this with the toxicity of mercury, arsenic, aluminum, and chlorine, as well as fluoride itself, and you have a very toxic mixture being consumed every day by individuals at substantially increased risk of anyone of a number of diseases—from cancer to degener­ative brain disorders to accelerated aging.

In 1993 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services concluded that there exist a subset of individuals that are especially susceptible to fluoride toxicity. These include the elderly, those with calcium and/or magnesium deficiencies, and those with vitamin C deficiency, plus persons having cardiovascular disease or renal disease. Together this includes tens of millions of people. To be thorough, though, we must also include the very young (from the unborn to adolescents) and those with neurological diseases, those with thyroid disorders and individuals undergoing the stress of disease, surgery, and chronic unrelieved stress. This includes virtually everyone in the world.

One question I am frequently asked is: if fluoride is so toxic, and those promoting its use know it, aren’t they afraid of the toxicity as well? They are in fact frightened of fluoridated water. When I asked a well-known opponent of fluoridation this question, he said that the mayor of Sacramento, California, Mayor Golding, stated as she voted for fluoridation of the city’s water, that she didn’t have to worry about fluoride toxicity because she had a reverse osmosis filter. He further stated that all you would have to do is walk the halls of the Capitol building and see all the purified water dispensers in the offices of those who have used their political power to force water fluoridation on millions of helpless and under-informed individuals.

These defenders of water fluoridation do not seem to care a whit that the poorest members of our society will be most harmed, since they will not be able to afford expensive reverse osmosis filters and distillation devices. They are also more likely to be deficient in antioxi­dant vitamins and minerals, and to suffer from medical conditions that will make them more vulnerable to the toxicity.

The Politics of Water Fluoridation

Those promoting fluoridation for profit have fine-tuned their methodology to an art. Technically, adding fluoride to drinking water is a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Under the statutes of this act, it is illegal for the federal government to promote fluoridation of drinking water by endorsing, supporting, requiring, or funding such efforts. So how do fluoridationists get around this impediment? They use federal block grants. You see, they merely offer the block grants for unspecified use by the city being targeted, and then simul­taneously have the state health departments and the American Dental Association move their well-funded forces into the area, screaming for fluoridation.

One may ask the question: If all this is true, why haven’t EPA officials spoken out? In fact, some have. In 1990 Dr. William Marcus, senior toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water at the EPA, was fired for daring to question the validity of a long-awaited government animal study on the safety of fluoride in drinking water. He found that the study was purposely designed to protect the fluoridation supporters’ claim that fluoride in drinking water is safe.

The study in question, carried out by the National Toxicology Program for the EPA’s Office of Drinking Water, purported to show that fluoride in drinking water was not connected to onset of cancer, but researchers purposely downgraded the definition of a tumor so it would appear that there was no connection between fluoride and a rare bone cancer called osteogenic sarcoma (also called osteosarcoma). Congress had mandated the study because of a real concern over the connection between increased cancer rates seen in epidemiology studies comparing fluoridated and unfluoridated communities. In truth, the study not only demonstrated a direct link to osteogenic sarcoma, but found that effects were dose related.

Dr. Marcus took his superiors to court and won not only his case and his job, but was also awarded $50,000 in damages. It was determined that the EPA also shredded important evidence during the trial, and had intimidated other EPA scientists who wished to support Dr. Marcus.

In November 1991 Dr. Bob Carton, vice-president of the union representing all twelve hundred scientists, engineers and lawyers at the EPA headquarters presented evidence of fraud in the preparation of the EPA’s fluoride drinking water standard. This evidence was presented to the Drinking Water Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board of the EPA. Carton received no response, but EPA headquarters now has fluoride-free water dispensed throughout their building.

Protective Measures

The stakes are so high, it is imperative that the public become involved in the battle to preserve clean water and food. Until that battle can be won, you must avoid fluoride as much as possible. This means no fluoride toothpaste, mouthwashes, or treatments by the dentist.

When you tell your dentist that you do not want fluoride treatments, he will jump up and down, turn red in the face, and while pointing toward his or her ADA certificate, tell you how all the scare stories are lies. You must understand that he or she is most likely mercury toxic and it makes him or her irritable. Just stick to your guns. Fluoride treatments are big business, and there are a lots of dentists in competition. The main problem is that most dentists do not realize that they have been lied to by the ADA.

This is especially important for the very young and for pregnant mothers. Drink only purified water, free of fluoride. This means you will have to purchase water that is either distilled or treated by reverse osmosis. For those who can afford it, a home distillation or reverse osmosis unit will save you the trouble of purchasing bottled water.

Fluoride is so caustic that it will damage the reverse osmosis filter within a few months, and it must be changed regularly to maintain the purity of your water. Foods cooked in water will also require fluoride-free water. As I stated previously, concentrations of fluoride increase as fluoridated water evaporates, and because it is so reactive, fluoride clings tenaciously to the vegetables or pasta being cooked. At that point, it becomes impossible to remove.

Some studies have indicated that calcium, magnesium, vitamins D and E, and certain amino acids can significantly reduce the toxicity of fluoride. The amino acids glycine and gluta­mine can both increase excitotoxicity, so I would not advise them as a protective measure. As for vitamin D, it has been shown experimentally to protect the embryos of pregnant animals exposed to fluoride.154

I recommend 500 mg magnesium a day in a highly absorbable form, such as magnesium lactate, malate, or gluconate. I do not recommend magnesium aspartate, since aspartate is an excitatory amino acid. Take 1000 to 2000 IV of vitamin D3 a day. Vitamin E should be either in the alpha-tocopherol succinate form or the natural form, often called mixed tocopherols. The natural form contains four different types of tocopherols found naturally in biological systems. The dose is 400-800 IV a day.

Calcium supplementation is the present rage, although—as I discussed earlier—not everyone needs it to prevent osteoporosis. Further, cellular calcium leakage may play a significant role in aging and many diseases. But we also know that calcium is a very effec­tive antidote for severe acute fluoride poisoning, and with people being exposed to such large acute doses of fluoride, blood calcium levels can fall to dangerously low levels, resulting in vascular collapse and cardiac arrest. Given this dilemma, I would recommend 1,000 mg of calcium citrate a day. Do not take calcium supplements made from a living organism, such as oyster shells or animal bone. These sources contain arsenic, lead, cadmium, and other contaminants.

It is especially important, in light of the extensive fluoridation of water supplies and foods, to avoid aluminum at all cost. This means aluminum cookware, aluminum cans and containers, aluminum in medications (both prescription and nonprescription), baked goods, and all other food sources. I am frequently asked about deodorants containing aluminum. I have no information on the absorption of aluminum through the skin, but it is certainly possible. If it can be avoided, it should be, until reliable data are available.

As you can see, to avoid toxic metals and other substances takes eternal diligence and tireless reading of labels. As with so many other modem-day hazards, eating fresh-grown foods and avoiding processed foods are the best ways to protect yourself.


In conclusion, I want to emphasize that I do not favor the government treating us as imbecilic children who must be constantly watched over and cared for by “benevolent” bureaucratic appointees. Fluoridation of water is a deliberate use of community drinking water to medicate millions of people. Remember that throughout modem history, there have been corrupt people who sought to use the public water system as a means of medicating the public, the most evil even going so far as to suggest adding tranquilizers to the water supply to keep the population docile. Fluoridation is an obvious abuse of public trust and a clear violation of the law.

What is so strange to me is that Americans have acquiesced to adding fluoride, a clearly recognized, very powerful toxin, to the water supply—not to prevent some deadly disease, but in hopes of preventing something as minor as tooth decay. The fact that these programs have been approved by the voting public does not make it any less criminal. It merely means that the proponents of this disaster have been able to convince—through coercion and outright lying—51 percent of the public to agree to this deadly policy.

No one told voters that the fluoride content of their foods, beverages, and water would continue to increase, so that even if they wished to avoid the poison, they would not be able to. No one cared about the indigent and those living on limited incomes who would not be able to afford filtered water or the expensive in-home filtration systems used by wealthy government bureaucrats, ADA elite, and state officials.

No one gave the choice to the pregnant woman who wanted to protect her unborn children from the devastating effects of high fluoride concentrations in her baby’s body. The choice has been denied to the child whose teeth have been destroyed by dental fluorosis, especially to children of poor families that cannot afford the expensive dental work required to correct this devastating condition. And no one gave the choice to elderly persons who will spend their waning years crippled from skeletal fluorosis or devastated by a neurodegenerative disease. They have all been forgotten.

Again, this is not a problem of free enterprise, as has been suggested by some opponents of fluoridation. Rather, it is an example of corporatism, collusion between corporations, and the government operating totally outside the free market system. Corporations are an anomaly of the free market and were condemned as such as early as the 1940s by two leading philosophers of free enterprise, Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek. They saw the corporation as an entity that used the power of government to stifle competition, the life­blood of free enterprise. They also saw that these institutions are similar to government itself in that they are inevitably heavily bureaucratized, and slow to respond to new and innova­tive ideas.

The collusion between the aluminum and superphosphate fertilizer industries and the government has resulted in the fluoridation of 75 percent of America’s drinking water—at a profit, no less. Hayek, in his waning years, came to understand that free enterprise without the firm foundation of natural law and a moral order would degenerate into chaos and legal plunder of the nation. Only the light of truth can halt this process.

One response

  1. Pingback: Wow. MUST READ | oldschoolvisions

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s